XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 18:27:42 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>   
   wrote:   
      
   >On 9/28/2014 9:05 PM, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >> On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:10:14 -0500, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   >> .   
   >>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:34:35 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 18:27:00 -0600, Uergil  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> In article , mur@.not.   
   >>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Most that I've encountered try to claim they have no belief. Not   
   believing   
   >>>>>> any gods exist can mean having no belief, or it could mean believing no   
   gods   
   >>>>>> exist. Even after making it clear they believe no gods exist many   
   atheists   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Most atheists only SUSPECT that no gods exist   
   >>>>   
   >>>>     No place(s) in the entire universe? Or just none associated with this   
   planet   
   >>>> or star system?   
   >>>   
   >>> There are zero gods that are supported by evidence.   
   >>   
   >>      Try to explain WHAT sort of evidence you think there "should be",   
   WHERE you   
   >> think it "should be", and WHY you think it "should be" to God's benefit for   
   him   
   >> to provide us with it if he exists.   
   >>   
   >Science is materialist, thus limited and confined to natural occurrence   
   >and natural entities made up of matter, thus the scientific method has   
   >no capability to examine and study the unnatural; therefore there can be   
   >no solid, empirical evidence for Deity, since Deity does not consist of   
   >matter.   
      
   So you are objecting that science doesn't accept bullshit that people   
   make up and attribute to some god or other.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)